respond from one to address them all. Interestingly, I read your comments. I
don't censor or sanction or summarily delete. I read and listen and respond. I
give you that courtesy. As a result of your collective and obviously
conspiratorial efforts to marginalize me, by deleting my posts BEFORE reading
you failed to see my answers. Thus, though I do not feel obligated to do so, I
will repeat some of them
ABOUT THE VIDEO
1) So Ms. Richardson's figures at the time, are not to be considered!!! (So I
must qualify and support even the quotes I provide, according to you - don't
think so.)
http://m.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20091018/NEWS/310189962
2) Striking a nerve among both advocates and critics, a recently released
study based on 2007 data found an estimated 71% of the region's adult Brazilian
immigrants living here illegally.
Submitted for your review, in general:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SL-YBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=brazilian+diaspora+%2B+Framingham&source=bl&ots=BwyC0lAAMa&sig=FCnLulLx2TbvqRZ56aim9fnyuJo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwA2oVChMI2_XBvb7MyAIVg1s-Ch0h3gah#v=onepage&q=brazilian%20diaspora%20%2B%20Framingham&f=false
3) As to what I would like to see, I mentioned that - again, if you had read
my comments. Keith Wagner, deport the illegals ALL 30 million (or how many) OF
THEM, like Trump says, close the borders, especially with Mexico, and at least
a 5-year moratorium on ALL immigration until we get our economic situation
under control.
INTRODUCTIONS: BUILDING COMMUNITY:
Greg Palmer and 'diversity': Among the things you said, Greg, the definition
(as I said) also entails: DIVERSITY OF OPINION - The concept of diversity -
quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.... I'm not
FOR diversity(in the sense that you use it) but since you are, then you embrace
my right to have a differing opinion than you do, or as the 'collective' does.
In fact if you are a proponent of diversity, you will even go so far as treat
me and my opinion with respect ... but that isn't what you're doing. You and
the collective are attempting to bully me into CONFORMITY (thus MANDATED
CONFORMITY), which isn't diversity. You want me to think like you do and act
like you do and discriminate like you do and I'm not doing that. You know the
ironic thing is, in this regard, it appears because I DO extend respect and
listen to your viewpoint, not relegating your posting to the trash heap, I
actually demonstrate more appreciation of DIVERSITY (differing thought) than
you do. You said, " If you are new here, and you have very quickly chosen to
align yourself with defending a very small group of people who promote active
racism and hate speech on their websites, TV shows, etc., then you have made
the decision that's best for you." Yes, I have made my decision - championing
the cause of those who contend for the truth, in their opinion if you will (and
mine) and who, as I understand it, for over 12 years have suffered the derision
and scorn and even censorship in your 'diversity-inspired' community. If you
cherished diversity, as you say, then you would allow the Rizolis (as I believe
that's about whom we are speaking) their opinion, give them their place to air
their views as you extend that to each other. They listen to your views and
have ... always seem to welcome conversation, as I understand, wouldn't shut
you down. NOW THAT'S diversity ... but I doubt that's what you mean!!! What
you seem to mean, as I said before is MANDATED CONFORMITY to the opinion of the
collective OR ELSE.
Brenda Crawshaw: You said, "If anyone wishes to be heard, one may want to
consider making relevant, well researched and perspicacious comments and posts
...." I guess that includes the personal character attacks on me too - seems
like these were done without confirmation, but derogatory unfounded accusations
are somehow OK, though I haven't done it to y'all. Evidently, the rule of proof
is exclusive to me.
LOSING PARTICIPATION - DELETING POSTS: Complaints about repetitive posts,
deleting those you don't like, Karen Kornbau said: "At this point there are
many posts I delete without reading it or after reading only a couple lines
....." I don't do that. I read to respond. I guess I'm one of few. Heaven
for-fend that we might give each other the space and respect to express
ourselves - you know - reciprocating discourse.
Vanessa Stern: "I feel the same way. Certain people and/or subject lines are
just automatically deleted.... I don't even understand why people keep certain
threads going. Ignore, ignore, ignore and it will eventually go away for lack
of an audience."
And Suze Craighead: I could take any of the benign posts, convert it to a
metaphor (or not) and make a political statement and ALSO relative to
Framingham. Even the mundane and mind-numbing issues like the dog park/poop.
But I say, well, it's important to someone.
HIJACKED: Red Grenham said, "But Linda's thread and this forum have been
hijacked by yet another negative inane ranting from Kay Ahlstrom (aka Jim
Rizzoli's Ghost Writer). Like a malicious computer virus." So you are
suggesting that ONLY the Rizolis think like I write!!! Really? I found their
posts (checking into the archives too) refreshing and ON TOPIC. They addressed
the problems, and just like ANY prophet or truth-bearer, they are despised in
their home town. But then, that's not new. I'm insulted that you think I
would need their inspiration to present my ideas here. However, having said
that, I am honored that you think of me in their flock - you know - birds of a
feather!!!!
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS (Now a permanent forum policy): Linda, you said,
speaking as Forum Manager, on FramGov, we do not encourage speculation about an
individual’s motivation. However, it is clear that a number of folks believe
that trolling behavior has been happening on our list, so I am going to open up
a discussion to talk about the general topic of trolling and how to discourage
it. To be clear about what I mean by trolling.
You defined trolling in this way: Posting a deliberately provocative,
off-topic, or extraneous message to the forum with the intention of 1) causing
maximum disruption and argument, 2) deliberate intent of provoking readers into
an emotional response or 3) otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Thread-jacking, (taking over a discussion thread with a subject unrelated to
the original posting while maintaining the subject line) is a behavior that is
example of #3 above.
If you are referring to me in this, it appears that this proves conspiracy - a
group effort to marginalize me, having everyone work together ... to prevent
thread-jacking.
I assure you, I do not post to purposely provoke disruption or argument. I
post because I believe strongly about what I'm saying. Not to say I won't
sometime in the future post in that way, and when I do, it will also be because
I believe just as strongly. It's been kid gloves so far.
I think most opinions WILL provoke an emotional response. We feel deeply.
Many things directed toward me provoke an emotional response, but I don't think
you meant ME, but those who read my posts. Good discussions draw us in. I'm
not responsible if what I post from an honest conviction upsets others. In
Texas they say, if the cat doesn't like it because you are rubbing the cat the
wrong way, turn the cat around.
Might want to check out what I'm saying instead of deleting my posts. I'm sure
y'all did this with the Rizoli posts - deleted theirs as well and now with mine
because I express a similar sentiment, opinion, conviction. I know... just
when you thought it was safe to go out into a Rizoli-free Framingham (or at
least on the FramGov Forum) ...
The FramGov collective conspiratorially is trying to marginalize me because my
opinion exposes the seeming hypocrisy of their declared DIVERSITY, which isn't
diversity at all but rather MANDATED CONFORMITY ... DO SO OR ELSE. The
derision in the past, character assassinations though you don't know me merely
confirms my position. The fact that you have collected together to try to bury
my comments confirms that I am successful in conveying my message.
I've quoted this before, but bears repeating, and thank you for validating my
position: "Reverting to name calling (derision, condemnation, character
assassination) suggests that you are defensive and therefore, find my opinion
valid." (Spock,Star Trek - Into the Darkness)